UKIP a party on the rise, why?

UKIP is a UK party who's policies include removing the UK from the EU, stopping immigration, cutting bureaucracy and spending more on the military and building prisons has received a huge boost in the local UK council elections, the first time a so called non mainstream party has done so well.Why is it that a party that has Micky mouse by the mainstream politicians had done so well? Are their policies so appealing to the electorate? Have the electorate had enough of the the mainstream party's policies which they perceive have been anti British?The experts say that their vote share was made up of 50% from the Conservatives with the other 50% coming from Labour the LibDems and new voters.

The same thing happened and is happening all around the first world atm minor parties are doing well, look how well the lib dems did in the British elections not long ago, same happened with the Greens in Australia etc. that is a common occurrence during economic crisis and the recovery from them, people don't like any party so vote for third parties, it is also often something of a protest vote, it pretty much never lasts though once stability is resumed.

I think with UKIP its a little deeper than just the recession.As the mainstream party's in the UK have promoted the ideals of the pseudo socialist dream of the European dictatorship the electorate has become more enlightened to the ridiculousness that is after all a faceless dictatorship who seek to control every aspect of an individuals life. They also realise that the economies of the individual nations are much the worse for their involvement in a economic zone that pursues a false economic model.While the control of the European political elite continues to dominate the British electorates life and lifestyle parties like UKIP will continue to prosper.

UKIP does appeal to the section of the population that feels resentment towards the swathes of immigrants that land on our shores, but also represent the only perceived alternative to the Old Firm of Labour and Conservative. As a libertarian I am turned on by anybody who wishes to scale back government bureaucracy, but if what you're saying is true and they are in favour of increasing military spending, I have to conclude that they do not represent a significant difference.

I guess the American equivalent would be the Tea Party: some good, some bad.

Considering they were only local elections its got the mainstream party's wondering.UKIP may be the surprise and as more and more people realize that Labour or the Conservative are not listening that they may just be the party that represents the British people.

Be honest, how many British people would vote for the Libertarians given their policies?

Most people in Britain (IMO) vote on a "what's in it for me?" basis. The trouble with the Libertarians is that they don't work like that: their platform is "we believe it's every man (or woman) for themselves, as long as you don't harm anyone else". And there is no gun lobby in Britain (the libertarians' natural franchise).

That said, from a personal perspective I can completely understand why so many people in Britain are voting for UKIP - many British people are fed up with the fact that Britain is such a magnet for immigration and many people (myself included) are fed up with the EU and its bureaucratic nonsense.

That's what we pay our taxes for. They are an insurance against when an if we need those things. The problem comes when millions who haven't paid a penny towards the safety net expect to use it all their lives for free.

The government gives welfare recipients an amount of money from the tax pot, i doubt very much that the said above return all of it to the tax pot,so it becomes a negative take from the tax pot.The more money given to welfare recipients the more the taxpayer has to contribute.

Still doesn't allow even serial tax avoiders to avoid tax completely. The government has to think up new ideas for raising taxes because they have fixed t for fewer and fewer people to be able to pay them.

BTW the splendid UKIP, if given control would have to raise taxes even higher to pay for their mad cap schemes.

I personally don't think the taxes would rise under UKIP, if they are true to their word (and i must admit all political parties tell porkies) the UK would go through a difficult time but would come through it stronger in the long run.Most of their ideas are less madcap than Labours or the Conservatives.

I don't know, they talk about pulling us out of the EU but never tell us where we would then trade, or even how.The local UKIP bloke makes it clear that they would stop prisoners "perks" without seeming to realise that the "perks" are there for the benefit of the staff. Without those "perks" they would need a massive increase in prison staff and how would that be funded but out of taxes?

They talk about ending immigration but immigrants are a net benefit to the country. How would they replace the benefits accrued?

Hence the massive increase in staff, oh, and the longer sentences.Another UKIP rep was suggesting today that we should make our prison system more like the American one! A fine idea, trade something that doesn't work perfectly for something that doesn't work at all!

I think you have fallen into the old EU retoric trap of the UK couldn't survive with the EU.Would the EU really stop trading with the UK though? The countries within the EU have just as much to lose if they stop trading with us and they all trade outside of the EU anyway.I have still seen no real figures to back up the claim that immigration is a net benefit to the UK, people keep getting mixed up with the figures for migration from the EU with those of ROW immigration. Even Mr Milliband had to appologize for the failings of Labours mass immigration debarcle.The EU countries employ 407,000 UK residents and the UK employes 1,400,000 EU migrants.

As many other party's are talking about the soft option prison stays and perks already then UKIP's policy is no different than any other party exept the Liberals who think prisons should be like holiday camps.The facts prison reformers seem to overlook when spouting their liberal rubbish is reoffending rates have risen in the last 30yrs so maybe their reforms are not working so well.

Nope the fact the idiotic parties like UKIP fail to mention is the only countries that have successfully decreased their recidivism rates and crime rates have embraced reformative jailing (what you would ignorantly label holiday camps) ie. Norway which lo and behold has the most liberalized prison system in the world and the lowest recidivism rate in the world, what a coincidence.

OH and as for those "terrible" immigrants, they reduce crime in the areas they move to and are less than half as likely to be on unemployment benefits.

The vast majority of the platform of UKIP is just an appeal from obvious ignorance on the basis of being provably and factually wrong to appeal to voters who are too cowardly to show their true colors and vote for the BNP.

And how exactly was mass immigration the labour parties debacle? Don't you remember Mr Powell, the Windrush and the masses brought into the country to run our transport and health systems? Or doesn't that count because Powell was a right winger?

Again, most prisoners "perks" are not for the benefit of the prisoners but a way of keeping control with the minimum of staff? Even American prisons offer "perks", as some of us seem to idolise the US prison system is it not a case of if it's good enough for them . . .

OH and if some prisoners call them that obviously you should and it's not ignorant

None of the statistics mentioned there are relevant at all, it does not cover crime rate's per capita or most importantly recidivism rates and those are the only relevant ones, why does it not cover them? Because Norway destroys them in both particularly the most important one because it's prisons operate better.

Trust me you don't want to go the way the US has we went tough on crime and criminals and we have the biggest prison population in the world, the highest recidivism rates in the first world and abhorrent crime statistics.

Just does not work and the data makes that abundantly clear.

Norway's recidivism rate is about 20% the UK's is about 60% and the US's is even worse than that.

It really can't be any more obvious.

OH almost forgot, you were wrong before, crime statistics in the UK continue to fall, it's at it's lowest rate for thirty years.

It would make life a lot easier if you were to actually quote the post you were replying to rather than randomly quoting! For instance, your first sentence makes absolutely no sense.I suspect you are viewing threads in threaded order, look at the top right and you will see two buttons, one saying "threaded" the other "chronological" click the second.

Your link seems to support Josaks suggestion that all things considered Norway has less of a problem with crime than the UK.

Well its obvious that Norway is a different beast all together and the fact that there are no punishments for crimes means the victims are the ones who loose out.Liberals will always state the rights of the criminals and never talk about the victims, the idea that there should be no punishment for crimes committed is nothing more than the failings of a few impacting on the lives of the law abiding.One of the major factors is population Norway has no overcrowding either in its country or jails.I noticed that recidivism rates are only calculated over 2 yrs.I also don't like the thought that someone who kills children could be released from prison after 21 years no matter whether they are rehabilitated or not.Prisons should be a place where criminals serve a period of incarceration for the crimes they commit, rehabilitation should start after the terms have been served.Nothing Norway has done has impressed me enough to believe criminals should have an easy time after murdering someone. I doubt if i would feel safe if the person who murdered my nephew was released early because someone believed him to be a reformed character.

Nope the people who lose out are a the victims created by the dumb systems used in countries that do not follow liberalized prison systems, prison terms are a different issue but if punishing people means creating more crime and more victims then it is outright stupid.

The liberal thinkers love to quote the Sweden experiment as the model for prison reform whilst showing it against countries like the UK and US its funny how they never mention Saudi Arabia their stats are better than both but their system of justice is much more harsh.

Saudi Arabia has almost twice the murder rate of Norway. Not to mention Saudi Arabia is not a first world nation and does not use the same methods of justice or record and their statistics are not independently collected by the OECD. Criminologists suggest however that Saudi Arabia actually has a very normal crime rate but that many crimes are dealt with outside of the law, families in Saudi Arabia for example usually do not report rapes to the police but instead kill the rapist. It makes it a useless comparison point altogether.

Any comparison is useless anyway because it doesn't take into account history or economic factors.The fact that some believe criminals shouldn't be punished for their crimes is rediculiousness in the extreme.

No it isn't obvious, provide examples. Rehabilitation is paramount if you want to save money (you were the one to mention history and economics) Punishment alone is futile, look to the UK's criminal justice system for the examples. Our prisons are filled with prolific, yet petty offenders. The press have consistently scare mongered about dangerous offenders; rapists, murderers and child molesters. They exist, of course, but they are not the individuals who populate our prisons. Our prisons are filled with shoplifters, car thieves, drug addicts and alcoholics, they serve a few weeks punishment and then they're kicked out, only to return a couple of weeks later.

And anyway, looking to Sweden for the answers is so yesterday, even though they have achieved a greater balance when it comes to rehabilitation/punishment than we have. Look to Norway- many respected social scientists do.

Without the state, how would the special interests go about committing aggression? Only through the pretence of a monopoly of force to solve all of our problems can they get away with murdering, spying on and stealing from law abiding citizens.

Without the vote (without a state where would we note our preferences?) the populace would be denied any opportunity to make decisions on their own behalf. . We have little control as it is, how would we exercise our rights and preferences without a ballot sheet?

The market is a much better indicator of our preferences. The state does not enhance our decision making abilities but inhibits them.

Instead of the corporations' wishes being enforced through the state, they should have to respond to the market. Being presented two or three essentially indistinguishable parties as "choice" is a farce.

You are very trusting and, personally, I feel that I'm the best person to indicate my preferences, the market has absolutely no business making decisions on my behalf. . I should have the right to decide on which piece of paper, and where, my cross is marked.

So you want to replace one dictator (the state) with another (the market) and also want to them to decide what is right for me, without my input. Good luck with that one!

Yes, you are the best person to indicate your preferences. You indicate them through the decisions you make and the other individuals you interact with. This is called: the market. Only the individual has the right over themselves and their property.

Statism is saying: I do not know how best to indicate my preferences, so I will simply let someone else decide for me, and for everyone else.

Nope statism is a recognition of the fact that many of these preferences cannot possibly be enacted by the individual. As in a the origins of statism, a secure border, it requires a level of organization largely impossible without a state to be effective on a large scale.

...I am completely annoyed now. This is a placeholder to remind me to post on this when the UKIP's website starts working again...

All I'm going to say for now is that I really, really don't like this crowd. They give me very bad vibes. Homophobia is part of the issue, but everything else I want to highlight...is on their dead website. Sigh. Later.

Personally, I think that all the hoo haa about UKIP on the rise is hilarious. Cameron could not secure a workable majority in 2010, why? Because in this country we have a collective consciousness(those who are old enough) and he was still associated with the nasty party. He had to lie pre-election, as the main parties do, to secure a tiny majority. Now, after this huge UKIP surge (not, and not forgetting that many of Farrage's voters would not vote for him in a general election) he is moving towards the "It's all the fault of immigrants and Europe" codswallop. He will lose many of the middle of the road types!Remeber those, they once voted for Blair?

This will split the Tory vote even further, and reaffirm the doubts of all those who thought that the nasty party had changed. And even if, even if, Farrage is able to muster more votes in 2015, this will not equate to seats- our voting system is too antiquated.

I believe that it was 1989, where the Greens secured 15% of the vote ( before the last byelection the Farrage types were celebrating such a percentage) Yet, it was 2010 before they gained a seat in parliament!

Also quite hilarious is those who are voting for UKIP because they are sick and tired of immigrants, strangely, many them appear to originate from white, middle class suburbia. Not multi ethnic/cultural cities. Oh how the mask slips. Reading the Daily Mail will surely dumb you down.

1. They want to withdraw from the European Commission on Refugees. Combined with their immigration policy, it's clear they would really rather not allow refugees. Given my great grandparents were refugees who went to England, I'm wary.

3. They have an incoherent policy on same sex marriage that is, admittedly, based on a real concern, but is still a mess.

4. I'd talk about their tax policy. If I understood what they were blathering on about. Well, except that they seem to think they can fund the NHS without NI... Oh, and you can both cut taxes and improve services. Would be nice.

5. They consider all renewable energy to be a scam. They don't believe in global warming. Whether you do or not, they don't care about pollution.

6. "Require all visitors to exhibit adequate health insurance at port of entry" Way to kill tourism, guys.

7. Young Independence, for some reason, gives me the creeps. Probably because their website sucks and provides no information.

It would be nice to see some of Labours policies but of vcourse they will wait until just before the election before they spout their lies wont they.

Europe is a mess, immigration is a mess, the economy is a mess and all the systems and controls put in place by Labour and the ConDems are a mess yet non of them have any ideas on how to get us out of it.

The UK is an island, the only way for a refugee to come here is by air or through other safe countries, therefor this suggests that the UK should have no refugees by their very definition. The same with asylum seekers, unless they arrive by air they can not really claim asylum.

A refugee can claim the status of a refugee, or do you believe that they are all "smuggled" here? Ever heard of the Vietnamese Boat People, white Rhodesians, Poles or Hungarians? What about Lord Carrington, ever heard of him? In other words, and in certain situations, countries including the UK agree to accept refugees before they have even entered the country. It's been going on for years you know.

The fact that we are an Island does not mean that we should not have refugees. Surprise, surprise- many of them enter the country legally.

They must claim asylum yes, but not necessarily to stay in the first safe country they reach. When human beings are escaping persecution en masse, it quite usual for other countries to agree to take x amount of refugees, or otherwise. But the fact still remains, immigrants and refugees are not one and the same.

The Labour party relies on funding from the unions currentlu standing at about 90%.The party is left of centre.The Labour party is a full member of the the party of European socialists.It also holds observer statue in the socialist international.The Labour Party is a membership organisation consisting of Constituency Labour Parties, affiliated trade unions, socialist societies and the Co-operative Party,

That's interesting, the chart also establishes that funding from the trade unions has also decreased from 2007. So, it isn't that the unions have increased funding since Miliband became leader (the reverse appears to be true) rather, the Labour Party have lost funding from other sources. Those figures, I believe, are from 2010. Would be interesting to see how things stand now. There are no links to the study from that page, sites really annoy me when they don't qualify their conclusions.

Does the Electoral Commission site include links to the study? The Labour Party was established by the unions so of course they will feel an infinity with it. Maybe things have changed somewhat, but when I worked in a closed shop in the early eighties we were asked each year if we wanted our contributions to be given to the party, we had the option to say yes or know.

As the daughter of a trade unionist, and having attended many many meetings over the years, I can honestly say that I can't once remember being coerced into voting for the Labour Party.

The conclusion is that John was wrong and the party is a socialist left leaning party.You have the right to choose who you vote for, your upbringing will define who you are and what you believe. I was born into a Labour voting household, i was amember of a union for 20 yrs, i became a shopsteward and represented workers on a works council.I have now decided to change my views about the union and i am no longer a union member or a labour voter. I believe evrything they stood for has been lost in their own wellbeing and self promotion.

Your conclusion may be that I am wrong, it is not a conclusion I share with you. There is far too much evidence around to even consider the Labour party to be even mildly socialist any more. As for left leaning, they are further to the right than the Conservatives were pre 1979.

I am not mocking you John i was just trying to give my reasons why i think the Labour party is the Labour party is the Labour party no matter what they are called the bulk of their donations always come from the unions who have some influence over party policies and politics.

You do realise of course that there is nothing socialist about trade unions? Many of their members are right wing and would run a mile from any sight of socialism.In a true socialist state trade unions would be absolutely redundant.

Though socialists are generally left wing, not all those on the left are socialists.

Is that why union membership continued to decline under Bliar and why more an more trade unionists left the labour Party and became members of other parties? And if the left wing unions were leading and ruling New Labour, why weren't the powers previously held by the Trade Unions restored?

I remember, you literally said "seizure of property". And it has to be considered seizure, because governments are defined by their aggression against property, and have to steal in order to 'buy' it in the first place.

The only way it could be considered voluntary is if it were a a private group that decided to buy property and run it communally.

If we look at the public utilities in the UK, they were started by the municipal authorities and paid for with the rate payers money, no property was seized, unlike when they were denationalised and public assets were seized for private gain.

That's not necessarily true, Innersmiff. People on the left are consistently told that Blair was/is a socialist, therefore, left wing ideology is responsible for Iraq, debt and every other evil. That's like saying that all right leaning individuals are responsible for the holocaust, or that all libertarians are gun wielding, war mongering nut jobs.

We have to separate the megalomaniac party leaders from the voters who have a different vision of the same ideologies.

I'm not arguing against making distinctions between political parties and actual ideologies, I'm only arguing for distinctions that are actually so. 'Left' and 'Right' are not significantly different ideologies, so arguing about whether Labour is 'left' or 'right' or not is a pointless exercise.

Agreed, so perhaps you can explain why so many right leaning thinkers feel the need to rant about "socialism" when in reality the only ones who benefit from this so called socialism are crony capitalists?

To anybody serious criticising the left, it's nothing to do with 'who benefits' but what it actually does: both socialism and crony capitalism are aggressions against liberty and property. At the end of the day, I couldn't care less what you call it.

Left and right is not a big distinction to you, all around the world tens of millions have died fighting for one or the other because they thought you were wrong. The vast vast majority of the word does (and growing). So obviously you are wrong, ideological differences can only be measured in how people react to them because that is exactly what they are designed to do, produce a reaction.

Ad-populum fallacies only apply if the issue is not specifically aimed at producing a popular response, that is what all ideologies aim to do and by their respective stances are defined by their followers so all that ideologies are is centered around a popular response so really it's not an applicable use.

Also please people are not hypnotized into anything, these ideologies spring up because they appeal to people and they believe in them strongly just as you believe in yours, no hypnosis required.

Let me give you an example:Let's say slavery was still largely accepted, and the main ideological paradigm was: whether the slaves should be put to agricultural work, or to factory work. Supporters of both ideologies might be vast in number, and support them passionately, but it doesn't change the fact that both of them carry the same essential assumption: that it is OK to enslave people. Is, then, the anti-slavery campaigner 'wrong' to say that the ideological 'differences' aren't significant differences at all?

I agree with what you say but should countries take refugees from safe countries? So people who have escaped from a country where they are persecuted to France should then be allowed to claim asylum in the UK?Also there must be a limit to how many asylum seekers a country can take so taking refugees from other safe countries can and will affect the population of that country. I am glad your ancestors found asylum in a safe country but there must be a limit or their offspring will suffer in the future.

@Innersmiff, spoken like a true Libertarian, I'll give you that. You want your property and person protected, but how will you pay for this- you don't like taxes either? Do you want me to pay for your protection?

I know you don't care what we call it, yet you are the one who talks about "all out socialism" and in the same breath, talks about people being hypnotised to produce a reaction. I'll count backwards from 10, disagreement about policy does not equate to "all out socialism" that's an irrational thought.

It will be a cooperation between myself and private defence firms that protect my person and property. If they don't do what I like, I withdraw my funds. With the state, I have no choice but to accept it.

HAHAHA oh my obviously never dealt with or served with "private security firms "

Not to mention many people can't afford any such service meaning that crimes can simply be committed against them with impunity meaning they will never be able to acquire enough wealth to afford it and will be perpetually poor.

This hilariously bad idea was actually tried (Like most anarchist and libertarian ideals) in many places in the early 19th and late 18th century, in England for example the most trusted company that provided a police service was eventually found to have been committing most of the crime and chasing itself the leader of it was executed, amazingly it worked so badly that people decided they needed a public system (as with most anarchist and libertarian ideas).

The demand for cheap security is already taken up by the state police force (that bastion of transparency and justice ) so private security firms take up the higher market. The absence of a state police force will free up that demand and prices will fall.

This amazingly good idea was tried in the early days of the United States in the form of militias. And remember, these were the days when American armies didn't go gallivanting around the world destroying everything in its wake - I wonder why that was?

Military and police force are different things entirely, not to mention that militias were armed, clothed etc. with tax payer money, and that they were not very good (being untrained compared to professional soldiers).

Edit: forgot to say, you will never ever be able to make it cheap enough so that everyone can afford it, and people completely unprotected will never be able to change their station.

I don't think you would be able to drop the real cost at all anyway, first off because many cops I know take the pretty meager pay and benefits for ideological reasons because they are working to protect everyone, that will go out the window when it's simply a business dedicated to helping some people and #2 the inefficiency.

Let's say that every street need a cop car patrolling it (for the sake of simplicity) currently that means we pay for one cop car, if there are four companies competing in that area which each have some clients on every street and still need a car on every street that is four cars patrolling now at presumably four times the cost. I think those factors will easily overcome the lowered cost of competition and still without providing anything to a whole lot of people who need protection most.

In a free market they will serve the same basic function. The modern military is not principally concerned with protection but structured to facilitate interventionism abroad.

Remember that, before the government stepped in and ruined it, fraternal societies acted as a safety net for the very poorest and most unfortunate, and it is conceivable that protective services for these could be paid for in this way too. (Interestingly, the welfare reforms in Britain were originally meant to be non-state solutions, in the form of expanding fraternities, i.e. a mass voluntary welfare system. Even the leftists of yesteryear realised that the state was rubbish at it.)

Your scenarios are economically flawed. Firstly, cops' wages will be subject to supply and demand like everything else. As they are completely necessary, prices will need to be low anyway. Not to mention, time and resources won't be being spent persecuting voluntary association such as drug abuse and prostitution.

Your second scenario is baffling. What is more likely is that street owners will hire the security services, and will specify in the contract how much protection they need, e.g. whether they need one or two cop cars patrolling the street. The contract signed in order to buy a house on the street would most likely include security as part of the community fee, which happens all the time now anyway. If there is no street owner, the home owners will most likely come together and pool funds for a security force, or simply create one out of their own numbers. You act is if people just lose their brains as soon as the government stops deciding things for them.

The welfare reforms came about in Britain precisely because non-state solutions did not work. Remember Dickens comments about the deserving and the undeserving poor? Where is your evidence that "even the leftists of yesteryear realised that the state was rubbish at it"?

Could you honestly afford G4S? And even if you could, would you honestly want to employ security firms that have their hand in the oppression of the Palestinians?

And are you suggesting that only "well off" property owners should have access to protection? Should protection only be afforded to the comfortable/wealthy? What about people who don't own property, like so many women, should they be denied protection?

I have the choice whether or not I want to interact with G4S. I don't have the choice but to interact with the government, a government that facilitates the oppression of Palestine and numerous other nations.

The reason why people vote for UKIP is simple, none of the above, the citizens of the UK are fed up with the way the establishment runs things, all main three parties have MP's that come out of the same mould. UKIP is not part of the ruling elite. The three main parties run a closed shop policy, if you didn't go to the right university you won't get selected to be an MP.

I think people are just fed up with the liberalisation of the UK. mostly forced upon us by the faceless bureaucrats of the big EU gravy train.

In 1965, the playwright Joe Orton wrote: ‘We live in a country which would give the power of arrest to the traffic lights if three women magistrates and a Liberal MP would only suggest it.’ And nothing much has changed since.

Absolutely John, its much worse now.With all the liberalisation and so call political correctness we seem to come to the point where not only would the traffic lights have the power of arrest the parking machine has the power to judge you guilty.A point where an illegal immigrant who commits a crime cant be deported because he as a cat and a murder can claim financial recompense because he had to wait to for trial while the victims family gets nothing for losing their loved one.A point where politicians can steal money from the public but then give it back and get away with it.A point where political leaders can start wars on falsehoods and suffer no punishment when found to be lying. In fact they are lauded by their equals.

The system may have been set up for the protection of all but it has become the refuge of the murderer the scoundrel, the fraudster and the politician.

Related Discussions

It seems the rise of the political right in the European elections has started the lefty leaners to question their ability to continue to fool most of the people most of the time.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27593556What Milliband and his crew don't seem to understand is that the shortages...

This tRump, far tops all environmentalist bs I have ever heard. Trump said,, “I’m an environmentalist.” Sir! and I have won many awards for it. This actually isn’t the first time Trump has tried to tell people that he’s a champion of the environment. In 2017, he said, “I’m a...

....soonest it will be; why did they kick out the British PM - what's his name again? Gordon Brown. I have been following the British election with some amount of attention but I still don't get why a serving PM is about get kicked out through the votes (atleast with all indices, polls and...

I think it's high time someone brought home to Mr President the brute and naked truth, as I view it, namely the fact that his silly policies that fail to win the seal of approval of the international community including America's indispensable allies ( such as the French, Brits, Germans, etc ) in...

This is a serious problem and if you are counting on your house for retirement nest egg in the land down under this is likely the peak: http://www.businessinsider.com/australi … ble-2011-1I urge you to realize that the housing shortage in australia is a myth and you can always tell this from...

(A comment by Richard Littlejohn {journalist} Daily Mail)A corner of a foreign field that is forever 'British'...Four ‘Britons’ have been killed fighting for Al Qaeda in Syria. So no surprises there, then.Wherever there is jidhadist terrorism, you can be sure that ‘Britons’ will be found on...

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)

Google AdSense Host API

This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

Facebook Login

You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)

Maven

This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.

Conversion Tracking Pixels

We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics

Author Google Analytics

This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)

Comscore

ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)

Amazon Tracking Pixel

Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)